Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QI (B series)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of QI episodes. Courcelles (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QI (B series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For similar reasons to those expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QI (A series) (2nd nomination). These pages consist of excruciating detail about every single episode of the show; any sources are either trivial references confirming air dates (e.g. to British Comedy Guide) or used to back up original research (e.g. corrections of facts from the show backed up with completely irrelevant, often poor sources). The articles violate policies on listcruft, fancruft, indiscriminate info and if all this were to be removed, the only thing that would be left would be a series of very short articles that contain nothing not already found at List of QI episodes or QI. I planned to ~~delete these articles~~ nominate these articles for deletion at a later date, when I had managed to use a bit more of the content for articles at the QI Wikia site (e.g. "Blue" based on QI (B series)), but a recent editing dispute has brought this to my attention again and it's clear this content just isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Lists of scores, forfeits and trivium collected in a television show, none of which has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not belong in Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC) small change: I have neither the technical ability nor the authority to delete pages at will. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this has be made to happen now. As to make up for what occurred, perhaps the layout of each Series Subpage could be done to simply state Broadcast Date, Recording Date (where applicable), Panellists, Winner, and Summary of Episode, like perhaps on other shows (I.e. Episode Blue - The panellists answer question about colour) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure you understand what this page is for. This page is for nominating an article—or in this case, a list of articles—for complete deletion. Like the page QI (A series), the pages nominated here will not exist in any form if people agree on this page that they should be deleted, so you cannot both agree with me and suggest that these pages should "be done to simply state Broadcast Date..." etc., as they will not be part of the encyclopedia any more if they are deleted. People usually use the words "Keep", "Delete" or "Merge" (moving information from deleted pages into other pages) at the start of their comments on "Articles for deletion" discussion, although this is not mandatory. (On a more pedantic note, "Subpage" is a technical term used to describe pages which have a "/" in their name, such as how "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QI (B series)" is a subpage of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". These pages (e.g. "QI (B series)") are not subpages of anything.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ah, forgive me, I was not understanding of that, as I never done this before. Anyway, now that I do, I would recommend keeping these, but with changes. Mainly, reshaping the whole layout of the information of episodes, like that used for other Series of TV Shows (like BBC's Top Gear), or to the layout on QI's own Wikia, that I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete all per nom. The only information contained in these articles beyond List of QI episodes is excessive expansion of "mini-factoids" from the show producing WP:YESPOV problems I noted here. I can't see how these articles wouldn't continue to be factoid dumping grounds. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I would be tricky to keep them, without someone tempted to put in facts. If I had my way, the only information would be notes about whether anything of significance happened in an episode, like a special object being brought in to show to viewers, or a guest coming in to help explain something, without putting in facts and such. Other than that, I would just put in an episode summary from some guide or such to describe what was going on in an episode. But that's just me... (GUtt01 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to List of QI episodes as essentially the same information is already there (and create a redirect for the deleted A series article too). 60.242.1.97 (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above view by 60.242.1.9, or Delete all. I doubt the notability of most of these individual episodes, and I have no doubt of the lack of encyclopedic value of these articles. DES ^(talk) 13:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of QI episodes, per 60.242.1.97's reasoning. Almost all of the information in these articles is already in List of QI episodes, yet each of them has a high number of incoming links, so redirects might be in order. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per 60.242.1.9, the individual series articles are too detailed (which are not well sourced) and a redirect to the list would serve readers much better. Seagull123 Φ 18:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like these will all be redirected. Looking at the AfD for Series A, it hardly looks like a consensus (2-1 for delete). Can an admin restore that page and then redirect it to preserve the history? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.